A NEW policy review published in the Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development (AJAD) calls for a shift in how Southeast Asia approaches food security — from maximizing domestic production toward building regional resilience.
AJAD is an international refereed journal focused on agriculture and development in Asia, published by the Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (Searca).
“Asean’s strategic food security objective should be resilience, not maximal self-sufficiency,” the paper said.
The article, titled “Asean Food Security in an Era of Polycrisis: From Production-Centered Policy to Regional Resilience,” is authored by Paul Teng of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies or ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore.
It analyzes how overlapping shocks — climatic events, geopolitical conflict, energy and fertilizer price swings, biological threats, trade restrictions and economic pressures — can occur simultaneously and amplify each other.
The review points to a paradox in Southeast Asia. The region is a major food producer and exporter, yet food insecurity and undernutrition persist within its borders.
The paper argues that these vulnerabilities are intensified because current shocks not only affect production but also trade, logistics, pricing, household incomes, and nutrition.
“The polycrisis era exposes the limitations of judging food security primarily through production,” Teng said.
The analysis argues that domestic production and self-sufficiency remain important, especially for staple foods, but are inadequate as sole indicators of food security.
The paper contends that countries must also ensure food remains affordable and accessible, functional supply chains are maintained, agricultural inputs are secured, and nutritional outcomes are protected when multiple disruptions occur.
Asean member-states bring different capacities to the regional food system. Some are major agricultural exporters, while others depend heavily on imports. Some have greater financial resources, technology, logistics infrastructure, and research capacity.
The paper suggests that resilience will depend on linking these complementary strengths rather than expecting each country to produce all its own requirements.
Drawing on figures from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and its partner-institutions, the study indicates that roughly 14 percent of people in Southeast Asia experience moderate or severe food insecurity, with 5.1 percent remaining undernourished.
Teng outlines a strategy centered on resilience — maintaining open food trade within Asean, broadening external supply options, securing access to agricultural inputs, scaling up climate-adapted production, safeguarding affordability and nutrition, and deepening regional collaboration on data, emergency preparedness, financing, and technology.
The paper said that Asean does not need to create an entirely new architecture. Existing mechanisms — including the Asean Food, Agriculture and Forestry Sectoral Plan 2026–30, the Asean Integrated Food Security Framework, the Asean Food Security Information System, the Asean Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve, and the Asean Climate Resilience Network — already provide a foundation for collective action.
The challenge, it said, lies in implementation and coordination when several shocks occur at once.
“Asean should concentrate on what it can do better regionally than individual states: keep regional markets functioning, share timely information, coordinate emergency responses, reduce asymmetries in capacity, scale proven solutions, and mobilize external resources,” Teng said.
